This country has just gone to hell

[Crookshanks]

The cap and tax bill has past - just barely. And 8 stupid republicans voted yes. All of them will be out of a job when they come up for re-election!

I cannot believe this bill passed - this is going to kill our country. They estimate it will cost 2 MILLION jobs a year!!!!! Pelosi - that spiteful bitch - had a 300 page amendment added in the middle of the night - so AGAIN - no one has read the bill they just voted for. :bang

God this makes me so angry - and yet very, very sad for this once great country. It's a sad, sad day for all Americans.

[Wild Cobra]

The cap and tax bill has past - just barely. And 8 stupid republicans voted yes. All of them will be out of a job when they come up for re-election!

I cannot believe this bill passed - this is going to kill our country. They estimate it will cost 2 MILLION jobs a year!!!!! Pelosi - that spiteful bitch - had a 300 page amendment added in the middle of the night - so AGAIN - no one has read the bill they just voted for. :bang

God this makes me so angry - and yet very, very sad for this once great country. It's a sad, sad day for all Americans.
Now we need to work on the senators.

Did you follow up on the link I posted to find contact information for your representative, and call, to voice your opinion?

If not you have no right to complain!

Law is made by those who choose to show up, or make their voice heard.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

2.3 million jobs lost per year, actually...

And we are all subject now to California home building codes, right down to the number of electric outlets you can have in a room.

Oh, and for all your liberal homeowners out there reading this, you will have to bring your home up to the magical Kali energy star specs before you can sell your home. No bitching now...

Dems just put the gun to the head of the American economy and pulled the trigger until the mag was empty :td

[boutons_deux]

Just on principle, eat shit, wrongies, and GFY.

8 years of Repug misrule, criminality, and $Ts wasted in phony wars are much bigger, will last for decades, than cap and trade (not that I think cap and trade will have much impact one way or the other).

[Wild Cobra]

Just on principle, eat shit, wrongies, and GFY.

8 years of Repug misrule, criminality, and $Ts wasted in phony wars are much bigger, will last for decades, than cap and trade (not that I think cap and trade will have much impact one way or the other).
I am so sick of this religion of the demoncraps. You have some serious dogma issues.

[Crookshanks]

boutons - you are such a tool! Take some time to find out what's in this bill and then get back to us you idiot!

[clambake]

why don't you just tell us whats in it?

[clambake]

2.3 million jobs lost per year, actually...

holy cow! geez, can you show us that? i'd be interested in seeing that!

[clambake]

come on guys, hurry. i got get packed for our vacation.

[clambake]

ok, so let me get this bookmarked.

on june 26th 2010, there will be 2.3 million jobs lost because of this bill?

[DarkReign]

Just on principle, eat shit, wrongies, and GFY.

8 years of Repug misrule, criminality, and $Ts wasted in phony wars are much bigger, will last for decades, than cap and trade (not that I think cap and trade will have much impact one way or the other).

This bill is horrible. I obviously believe the same Repubs denouncing this would equally defend it if the shoe was on the other foot, that trivial difference does not change the fact that this bill is a game killer (in the long run).

[clambake]

how is that DR?

what part of this bill is a game killer?

[DarkReign]

how is that DR?

what part of this bill is a game killer?

Youve read the same material I have. The projections about cost to consumers is based on imaginary numbers 11 years from now.

Beyond that, look at what this does! It creates a new means for the government to make money (selling tickets) and the private financial sector to make money (buying/selling/trading based on demand), all on the backs of the consumer. The energy companies are just going to pass this cost onto us, period.

Unless of course you have some delusion that the American energy infrastructure is going to rapidly change in the next 11 years. Or at least enough to offset the sheer amount of coal and oil we as a country consume.

Moreover, energy requirements/usage do not decrease over time, contrary to the bullshit people are spewing these days. If anything, history shows a rapid, exponential increase in consumption.

These fucking crooks have NO intention of curbing the American appetite, clambake. They plan on reaping profit from it, thats fucking that. The fact that our government is complicit should send a chill down the spine of anyone who has one.

Heres why; if the government was sooooo interested in actually affecting some sort of change to our energy vista, they'd mandate that X% of energy be created by acceptable means (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, wtfever) in incremental steps upward over Y period of time. Its not like the government hasnt set precedent recently about their ability to meddle in private industry and one could even argue that if there was even one reasonable industry for the government to be heavily involved in, it would be energy.

No. Instead the government institutes an indirect tax by way of tradeable tickets among a private industry that will be declaring financial war for them. Artificial product with an artificial demand at an artificial price. Worst part, we'll be paying genuine article money for it.

[sook]

they crawl out of their little holes like cockroaches after bush leaves.

Why do we even give credence to their posts? They are as irrelevant as the minority parties now

[DarkReign]

they crawl out of their little holes like cockroaches after bush leaves.

Why do we even give credence to their posts? They are as irrelevant as the minority parties now

Who is "they" and what person has "crawled" into this thread that isnt an established poster?

[SonOfAGun]

I hope the bear eats every fucking one of the weak in this country while I continue to outrun them.

[DarkReign]

In conclusion, this bill only reinforces the suggestion that this government no longer has any limits to which it will finance itself through way of extortion of its people. This bill is lawyered up in hyperbole and completely ineffective to its supposed goal.

Its quite literally a giant lie. A lie used in the extortion of us. Its delayed on purpose, it absolves blame and creates a giant fucking freeway-sized hole for future government to exploit as our spending continues to climb.

I cant fucking believe I am the only moderate or Dem or wtfever to stand alone on this. This is not partisan, this is some other abomination that should offend the very fabric of any American, IMO.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

they crawl out of their little holes like cockroaches after bush leaves.

Why do we even give credence to their posts? They are as irrelevant as the minority parties now

tell me how this will benefit you? put down the obama pom poms and tell me how this will benefit you? how in the hell will this help this supposed global "warming" "issue". are other countries bound by this? no. kinda like pissing in the wind and the piss will be mine and your hard earned wages. the R and the D by your little registration card doesn't mean one damn thing. kinda like where the constitution is headed.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I cant fucking believe I am the only moderate or Dem or wtfever to stand alone on this. This is not partisan, this is some other abomination that should offend the very fabric of any American, IMO.


you only need a frickin' brain to see that this bill is just an all out extension of government into everyones lives with a held out hand waiting for the payoff. every member of the house that voted for this should be voted out of office. OH WAIT!!! how partisan of me!! :jack

[Viva Las Espuelas]

ok, so let me get this bookmarked.

on june 26th 2010, there will be 2.3 million jobs lost because of this bill?

we've lost about a million or so in about 6 months so this really isn't far fetched.

[clambake]

DR, frankly, i've never seen you more paranoid than right now.

if everything you suggest happens, then, finally, this country will have it's bastille moment.

a few days ago, this is the exact scenario you were wishing for.

[clambake]

we've lost about a million or so in about 6 months so this really isn't far fetched.

i see that you've already helped someone back off the claim of 2.3 million because of this bill.

let aggie handle his claim.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The cap and tax bill has past - just barely. And 8 stupid republicans voted yes. All of them will be out of a job when they come up for re-election!

I cannot believe this bill passed - this is going to kill our country. They estimate it will cost 2 MILLION jobs a year!!!!! Pelosi - that spiteful bitch - had a 300 page amendment added in the middle of the night - so AGAIN - no one has read the bill they just voted for. :bang

God this makes me so angry - and yet very, very sad for this once great country. It's a sad, sad day for all Americans.

all of these dudes voted yes. get there ass out. sorry to break away from my supposed "partisan hackery".


Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

[101A]

Youve read the same material I have. The projections about cost to consumers is based on imaginary numbers 11 years from now.

Beyond that, look at what this does! It creates a new means for the government to make money (selling tickets) and the private financial sector to make money (buying/selling/trading based on demand), all on the backs of the consumer. The energy companies are just going to pass this cost onto us, period.

Unless of course you have some delusion that the American energy infrastructure is going to rapidly change in the next 11 years. Or at least enough to offset the sheer amount of coal and oil we as a country consume.

Moreover, energy requirements/usage do not decrease over time, contrary to the bullshit people are spewing these days. If anything, history shows a rapid, exponential increase in consumption.

These fucking crooks have NO intention of curbing the American appetite, clambake. They plan on reaping profit from it, thats fucking that. The fact that our government is complicit should send a chill down the spine of anyone who has one.

Heres why; if the government was sooooo interested in actually affecting some sort of change to our energy vista, they'd mandate that X% of energy be created by acceptable means (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, wtfever) in incremental steps upward over Y period of time. Its not like the government hasnt set precedent recently about their ability to meddle in private industry and one could even argue that if there was even one reasonable industry for the government to be heavily involved in, it would be energy.

No. Instead the government institutes an indirect tax by way of tradeable tickets among a private industry that will be declaring financial war for them. Artificial product with an artificial demand at an artificial price. Worst part, we'll be paying genuine article money for it.


Great post, and the part I bolded is beyond that.

[jack sommerset]

The little boy who cried wolf just fucked our country. Unfucking real. The chicken littles won this one.

[jman3000]

Unless of course you have some delusion that the American energy infrastructure is going to rapidly change in the next 11 years. Or at least enough to offset the sheer amount of coal and oil we as a country consume.

Moreover, energy requirements/usage do not decrease over time, contrary to the bullshit people are spewing these days. If anything, history shows a rapid, exponential increase in consumption.

These fucking crooks have NO intention of curbing the American appetite, clambake. They plan on reaping profit from it, thats fucking that. The fact that our government is complicit should send a chill down the spine of anyone who has one.

Heres why; if the government was sooooo interested in actually affecting some sort of change to our energy vista, they'd mandate that X% of energy be created by acceptable means (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, wtfever) in incremental steps upward over Y period of time. Its not like the government hasnt set precedent recently about their ability to meddle in private industry and one could even argue that if there was even one reasonable industry for the government to be heavily involved in, it would be energy.


I feel the same way. It would be one thing if the government would allow the 20 something planned nuclear plants to begin construction... but what's the point of trying to change our infrastructure if you're going to drag your feet on something that could really ease our use of coal?

I'm not gonna bitch like a baby now like some are doing in this thread... I'll start bitching when the empirical evidence starts popping up that this was a supremely shit-tacular piece of legislation. If sizable moves aren't made in the construction of new sources of energy early on... it's gonna be apparent that companies won't be prepared for the deadline and things will get a lot worse.

Either we'll make a transition to a completely restructured power infrastructure... or the dems just guaranteed GOP rule for the foreseeable future.

I think a better policy would have been to reward companies that retrofit/upgrade existing plants or build clean sources of energy rather than this road to punishment they think will work better.

[jman3000]

:lol damn Viva is so damn bitter.

[clambake]

101A, you have addressed your personal fear.

hang in there, i'm pulling for you.

to everyone else.............prove something beyond the whine.

and it HAS to be more than "I'm moving my company somewhere else".

[jman3000]

Coercion is a horrible way to do business. It only breeds animosity.

Anybody who has taken a simple management course knows that.

[spurster]

Where does this 2.3 million estimate come from?

[SnakeBoy]

It should get through the senate, remember McCain supported cap & trade also.

This is a democracy so I feel the people should get what they voted for, for better or worse. Have an open mind folks, consider the possibility that you are completely wrong about how things work and this will create jobs and make the world a clean wonderful place. If your not wrong, well the progressive democrats (and the progressive repubs) will pay a heavy price.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Just on principle, eat shit, wrongies, and GFY.

8 years of Repug misrule, criminality, and $Ts wasted in phony wars are much bigger, will last for decades, than cap and trade (not that I think cap and trade will have much impact one way or the other).

Hey dumbfuck, Obama's spending more this year than we did on the war in Iraq.

Pull your head out of you liberal ass.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

This bill is horrible. I obviously believe the same Repubs denouncing this would equally defend it if the shoe was on the other foot, that trivial difference does not change the fact that this bill is a game killer (in the long run).

It's a bad bill no matter who authored it. If it were Bush and the Repubs doing it four years ago when they actually had control of Congress, it would still be the worst bill in the history of this country.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

tell me how this will benefit you? put down the obama pom poms and tell me how this will benefit you? how in the hell will this help this supposed global "warming" "issue". are other countries bound by this? no. kinda like pissing in the wind and the piss will be mine and your hard earned wages. the R and the D by your little registration card doesn't mean one damn thing. kinda like where the constitution is headed.

Amen.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

we've lost about a million or so in about 6 months so this really isn't far fetched.

I believe the number mentioned today in debate on the Hill was that we've already lost 1.4 million this year. Republicans were holding that up and asking the Dems if they were comfortable with piling another million jobs lost on top of the disaster that has been this year so far.

[clambake]

oh good. i knew stupidity would soon take over in this thread.

[Extra Stout]

I think I've already explained how all this ends.

[Extra Stout]

At least I can take solace that the carbon trade markets will probably be centered around Houston, that is, unless the General Secretary dictates they be in California or some other more politically amenable state.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

oh good. i knew stupidity would soon take over in this thread.

Well, you have made a post in it...

Hey, here's a fun one... explain to us how this is going to benefit this country. How is it going to be jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs as Pelosi put it, when all the manufacturing moves out of this country? Or was she talking about jobs in other countries?

The Dems just signed an economic death sentence for America, and you're beating off about it. I honestly hope all the ignorant libs such as yourself are the first ones unemployed because of this crap. You deserve it (but not the extended unemployment benefits that will not cost us anything according to the Dems).

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, you have made a post in it...

Hey, here's a fun one... explain to us how this is going to benefit this country. How is it going to be jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs as Pelosi put it, when all the manufacturing moves out of this country? Or was she talking about jobs in other countries?

The Dems just signed an economic death sentence for America, and you're beating off about it. I honestly hope all the ignorant libs such as yourself are the first ones unemployed because of this crap. You deserve it (but not the extended unemployment benefits that will not cost us anything according to the Dems).

Just out of curiousity, what happens if the dems are right on this one? What will people like you do then? All we have at this point is the Republicans throwing around psuedo facts and bumper sticker slogans The question was asked where the 2.3 million lost job figures came from and not one of the accusers could back it up. Instead they call liberals stupid when they cannot support their argument against this bill.

[jman3000]

I'll go out on a limb and say it's from one of those awesome emails they're known to get.

[SnakeBoy]

Hey, here's a fun one... explain to us how this is going to benefit this country. How is it going to be jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs as Pelosi put it, when all the manufacturing moves out of this country? Or was she talking about jobs in other countries?


The theory is that it will jack up the cost of using fossil fuels higher than the cost of "green" energy. Thereby encouraging the growth of green jobs. I haven't heard any real explanation for how the green job growth will offset the loss of jobs because of cap & trade. I also haven't heard them explain that it will result in the permanent increase in energy costs for the average american.

In the larger cap & trade world theory, manufacturing won't leave because they'll get every country to do the same thing so there won't be any financial incentive to relocate. Makes perfect sense and is completely realistic right?

Oh well, Obama made no secret about this plan and the majority of americans want it. So stop whining and let them get what they asked for. Would you feel better if McCain had won and pushed cap & trade like he said he would? I guess you'd have to say the majority of republicans want it too since they picked the only candidate who supported cap and trade to represent them in the election.

[angrydude]

When it fails they'll blame it on capitalism and call for more regulation.

Just watch.

[clambake]

:lmao @ all the people in here with the fear of Boehner.

[PEP]

How's this straight from the horses mouth. Is this defendable?


On Jan. 17, 2008, Obama was interviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle and said:

“You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it -- whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It's just that it will bankrupt them."

[PEP]

Just out of curiousity, what happens if the dems are right on this one? What will people like you do then? All we have at this point is the Republicans throwing around psuedo facts and bumper sticker slogans The question was asked where the 2.3 million lost job figures came from and not one of the accusers could back it up. Instead they call liberals stupid when they cannot support their argument against this bill.
If they are right then good on their part. I dont have a problem giving credit when its due.

What if theyre not? Are you going to take them to task for it because more often than not its the liberals on this board that usually are the one's foaming at the mouth spouting stupid shit that cant have a coherent conversation.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

sorry for the long read.... there's links in the article, but for some reason they're not differentiating. just scroll over with your mouse. there's quite a few.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/24/politics/washingtonpost/main4888350.shtml) its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report (http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf) that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf) to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process (http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html) inside a federal agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused (http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/broken_government/articles/entry/927/) of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels."

E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.

"I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years exactly what I was to work on," said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. "And it was not to work on climate change." One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.

For its part, the EPA sent CBSNews.com an e-mailed statement saying: "Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted."

Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site (http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/) lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.

If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper (http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/whyadifferent) he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.

The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.

"The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it's supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way," said Sam Kazman (http://cei.org/people/sam-kazman), general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. that has been skeptical (http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/04/global-warming-101-solutions/) of new laws or regulations relating to global warming.

Kazman's group obtained the documents -- both CEI and Carlin say he was not the source -- and released the e-mails on Tuesday and the report on Friday. As a result of the disclosure, CEI has asked the EPA to re-open the comment period on the greenhouse gas regulatory proceeding, which ended on Tuesday.

The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

That appears to conflict with an e-mail from McGartland in March, who said to Carlin, the report's primary author: "I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." He also wrote to Carlin: "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."

One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the unusual speed of the regulatory process. Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2 -- the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision.

"All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment." (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)

In the last few days, Republicans have begun to raise questions about the report and e-mail messages, but it was insufficient to derail the so-called cap and trade bill (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/26/politics/main5117623.shtml) from being approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee, invoked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exahrDQod_c&feature=channel) Carlin's report in a floor speech during the debate on Friday. "The science is not there to back it up," Barton said. "An EPA report that has been suppressed... raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. If you don't have an endangerment finding, you don't need this bill. We don't need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in its decision." (The endangerment finding is the EPA's decision that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.)

"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a statement. "But the EPA is supposed to reach its findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this important study casts doubts on EPA's finding, and frankly, on other analysis EPA has conducted on climate issues."

The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/2297c12a9f4773d285257547006497d4%21OpenDocument) in January: "I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." Similarly, Mr. Obama claimed (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/27/Give-Your-Comments-on-Scientific-Integrity/) that "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over... To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life."

"All this talk from the president and (EPA administrator) Lisa Jackson about integrity, transparency, and increased EPA protection for whistleblowers -- you've got a bouquet of ironies here," said Kazman, the CEI attorney.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

way to keep science in the front seat there, mr obama.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

more of the same, anybody?..........

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Group calls bill weak, says Obama choosing politics over science

A day after President Obama threw his support (http://ecopolitology.org/2009/06/24/obama-urges-congress-to-pass-waxman-markey-climate-bill-video/) behind the American Clean Energy and Security Act, one of the world’s most prominent environmental advocacy organizations has come out in strong opposition to the bill, which is set to go to a full vote on the House floor as early as Friday.
Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett today released a statement calling the proposed climate legislation “weak” and insufficient to address the severity of the problem at hand. Greenpeace called on Congress to reject the bill and “begin immediate and urgent work on legislation that treats seriously the dire threat of climate change.”
“We are calling upon Congress to vote against this bill unless substantial measures are taken to strengthen it,” said Muffett.
Greenpeace’s biggest bone of convention was that emission reduction targets in the bill are “far lower than science demands,” and that the giveaways and preferences in the bill will spur the growth of a new fleet of nuclear and coal-fired power plants “to the detriment of real energy solutions.”
“Despite President Obama’s assurance that he would enact strong, science-based legislation,” Greenpeace’s Muffett explained, “we are now watching him put his full support behind a bill that chooses politics over science, elevates industry interests over national interest…”
“To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history. We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak,” said Muffett.


Mixed support and strange bedfellows
By staking-out opposition to the bill, Greenpeace now joins the conservative-leaning PAC, Americans Solutions for Winning the Future, which just launched a fear-based TV ad (http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/06/23/using-fear-rightie-pac-ad-decries-waxman-markey-climate-bill/) about the dire economic consequences of passing Waxman-Markey.
Greenpeace, however, does not represent the entire universe of environmental advocacy organizations. Many organizations and environmental advocates have expressed their concerns with the bill, but see its passage as better than the other alternative of doing nothing at all. The Sierra Club and The League of Conservation Voters, for example, just produced a new advertisement (http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/06/24/environmental-groups-launch-new-ad-in-advance-of-waxman-markey-vote-video/) in support of Waxman-Markey featuring the words and images of President Obama.
Although President Obama has not aggressively shaped and pushed ACES, he is expected to sign the bill (http://www.celsias.com/article/are-president-obamas-ecopolitical-convictions-wave/) as it is currently written if it gets to his desk. But that may never happen.
Even if a single Republican does not vote for the bill, it likely has the numbers to pass a full vote of the House. The same cannot be said for the Senate, where getting the bill through with a veto-proof super majority of sixty votes will prove much more difficult.


http://ecopolitology.org/2009/06/25/greenpeace-opposes-waxman-markey-climate-bill/

[Viva Las Espuelas]

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

an excerpt...............

Europe’s current policy and strategy for supporting the so-called “green jobs” or
renewable energy dates back to 1997, and has become one of the principal
justifications for U.S. “green jobs” proposals. Yet an examination of Europe’s
experience reveals these policies to be terribly economically counterproductive.

This study is important for several reasons. First is that the Spanish experience is
considered a leading example to be followed by many policy advocates and politicians.
This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and
impact has been made. Most important, it demonstrates that the Spanish/EU-style
“green jobs” agenda now being promoted in the U.S. in fact destroys jobs, detailing this
in terms of jobs destroyed per job created and the net destruction per installed MW.

The study’s results demonstrate how such “green jobs” policy clearly hinders Spain’s
way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing
into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil.
The following are key points from the study:

1. As President Obama correctly remarked, Spain provides a reference for the
establishment of government aid to renewable energy. No other country has
given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity
through renewable sources. The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s “green
jobs” schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that
massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs. The
question that this paper answers is “at what price?”

2. Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find
that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s
experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence,
by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs
on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add
those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would
have created.

3. Therefore, while it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with
exactitude to claim that the U.S. would lose at least 6.6 million to 11 million
jobs, as a direct consequence were it to actually create 3 to 5 million “green
jobs” as promised (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of
private capital employed in renewable energy), the study clearly reveals the
tendency that the U.S. should expect such an outcome.

4. At minimum, therefore, the study’s evaluation of the Spanish model cited as
one for the U.S. to replicate in quick pursuit of “green jobs” serves a note of
caution, that the reality is far from what has typically been presented, and that
such schemes also offer considerable employment consequences and
implications for emerging from the economic crisis.

5. Despite its hyper-aggressive (expensive and extensive) “green jobs” policies it
appears that Spain likely has created a surprisingly low number of jobs, twothirds
of which came in construction, fabrication and installation, one quarter in
administrative positions, marketing and projects engineering, and just one out
of ten jobs has been created at the more permanent level of actual operation
and maintenance of the renewable sources of electricity.

6. This came at great financial cost as well as cost in terms of jobs destroyed
elsewhere in the economy.

7. The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 to create each
“green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job.

8. The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the
destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs
destroyed for every “green job” created.


Obama has pledged to create 5 million green jobs and break U.S. dependence on foreign oil, investing $150 billion in the next decade to build an energy economy that relies on renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal energy.(..........woopsie)

9. Principally, the high cost of electricity affects costs of production and
employment levels in metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing,
beverage and tobacco industries.

10. Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the
economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro.

11. These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain’s approach but instead are
largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources.

12. The total over-cost – the amount paid over the cost that would result from
buying the electricity generated by the renewable power plants at the market
price - that has been incurred from 2000 to 2008 (adjusting by 4% and
calculating its net present value [NPV] in 2008), amounts to 7,918.54 million
Euros (appx. $10 billion USD)

13. The total subsidy spent and committed (NPV adjusted by 4%) to these three
renewable sources amounts to 28,671 million euros ($36 billion USD).



-------------------------------------------------------------------
it only gets better. looks like facts are getting a front seat as well, mr obama.

[SonOfAGun]

This country gets what it deserves. Let the people fall, and their government leaders make off like bandits raping the country while pissing on the graves of our founding fathers.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

This country gets what it deserves. Let the people fall, and their government leaders make off like bandits raping the country while pissing on the graves of our founding fathers.
..and yet people still wear their pom poms.

[Winehole23]

I think I've already explained how all this ends.I don't recall. How is that?

[Winehole23]

This country gets what it deserves. Let the people fall, and their government leaders make off like bandits raping the country while pissing on the graves of our founding fathers.The Senate hasn't passed anything yet, Slick. Down with you. Everybody else isn't resigned to it yet.

Has it occurred to any of you clairvoyants besides WC that your celebration of the ultimate demise of the USA might be a bit premature?

Write your effing US Senators (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm). Tell them you think this bill is bad for America.

[LnGrrrR]

The cap and tax bill has past - just barely. And 8 stupid republicans voted yes. All of them will be out of a job when they come up for re-election!

I cannot believe this bill passed - this is going to kill our country. They estimate it will cost 2 MILLION jobs a year!!!!! Pelosi - that spiteful bitch - had a 300 page amendment added in the middle of the night - so AGAIN - no one has read the bill they just voted for. :bang

God this makes me so angry - and yet very, very sad for this once great country. It's a sad, sad day for all Americans.

Already, I see the rioting on our streets.

[SonOfAGun]

Write your effing US Senators (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm). Tell them you think this bill is bad for America.


:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Write your effing US Senators. Tell them you think this bill is bad for America.:lmao:lmao:lmao
Believe it or not, they listen when people actually write and send it snail mail, or call. It's the e-mails they pay less attention to with the way people can do that in bulk and under aliases. For every letter of call they get, they figure something like another 1000 people who feel the same way but doesn't take the time for it.

[ElNono]

Believe it or not, they listen when people actually write and send it snail mail, or call. It's the e-mails they pay less attention to with the way people can do that in bulk and under aliases. For every letter of call they get, they figure something like another 1000 people who feel the same way but doesn't take the time for it.

The vast majority still vote either the way the lobbysts that pay their campaign ask them to, or along party lines regardless of their own opinion. Sucks? Sure. But it's been like that for way too long.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Just out of curiousity, what happens if the dems are right on this one? What will people like you do then? All we have at this point is the Republicans throwing around psuedo facts and bumper sticker slogans The question was asked where the 2.3 million lost job figures came from and not one of the accusers could back it up. Instead they call liberals stupid when they cannot support their argument against this bill.

I'll hunt it down for you. Both the Dems and the Republicans discussed this number in debate on the floor on Friday.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The Senate hasn't passed anything yet, Slick. Down with you. Everybody else isn't resigned to it yet.

Has it occurred to any of you clairvoyants besides WC that your celebration of the ultimate demise of the USA might be a bit premature?

Write your effing US Senators (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm). Tell them you think this bill is bad for America.

You act like they care what people have to think.

SA's own rep, Cuellar, got something like 90% calls against, 10% for. He dismissed all the people against it as special interest lobbyists inundating his office. The only special interests here are the ones putting money in the reps' pockets to vote for stupidity like this.

Howabout TARP? We all got told the same politicians that got us into this mess knew more than us. They don't give a fuck. They are all getting rich on the backs of the poor and middle class and laughing all the way to the bank.

[Wild Cobra]

Just out of curiousity, what happens if the dems are right on this one?
Lol...

Do you really think that's possible on this? Did you read any of the legislation? What about the Vouchers for Clunkers? Then any part of it that assumes this will help reduce Global Warning is a flat out crock of shit. This is just another way to tax people. I've been hearing that Nacy Pelosi owns stocks that will skyrocket if this bill becomes law also.

Tell me there's no unethical and very likely illegal activities there.

[jman3000]

"I've been hearing" and "I got a random email from TEAM SARA stating that" are two different things.

If you have a link I'd be glad to agree with you.

[Wild Cobra]

Unlike most people here, I read HR 2454. It adds to programs like HR 2640. Here is a wiki entry, Part of link: Scrappage Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrappage_program). Part of that entry:


A scrappage program is currently working its way through the United States Congress. Economist Alan Blinder helped popularize the idea of a scrappage program, and the moniker "cash for clunkers," with his July 2008 Op-Ed piece in the New York Times. Blinder argued that a cash for clunkers program would have a tripartite purpose of helping the environment, stimulating the economy, and reducing economic inequality. Plans currently proposed in Congress call for a maximum $4,500 voucher for people who trade in an old vehicle with a combined fuel economy of 18 miles per gallon or less and purchase a new car that is 10 mpg more efficient or a truck that is 5 mpg more efficient.

Now in HR 2454, section 124:


SEC. 128. TEMPORARY VEHICLE TRADE-IN PROGRAM.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration a program to be known as the ‘‘Cash for Clunkers Temporary Vehicle Trade-in Program’’ through which the Secretary, in accordance with this section and the regulations promulgated under subsection (d), shall—

It goes on with the criteria to get $3,500 or $4,500 to buy a new vehicle.

Guess what people. We, the tax payers, are helping others buy cars!

Do you liberals know what redistribution of wealth is?

This section 128 goes beyond the CARS program, which starts and end rather quickly. Here's and article about it:

Customer Assistance to Recycle and Save program (or CARS) (http://www.gm.com/cash-for-clunkers/)

[ElNono]

Guess what people. We, the tax payers, are helping others buy cars!

Nice. I actually need to replace my Jeep sooner than later and this will come handy. Thanks!


Do you liberals know what redistribution of wealth is?

I don't think liberals in general are against redistribution of wealth. I mean, Obama policies talked about it the entire campaign and he still got elected by a fairly wide margin.

[jman3000]

It's obvious that all these celebrities are in Gault's Gulch in Colorado. They're just "shrugging" because of Obama.

[Wild Cobra]

Pelosi will profit from Obama-Waxman-Markety cap-and-trade energy bill
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
06/24/09 5:07 PM EDT (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Pelosi-will-profit-from-Obama-Waxman-Markety-cap-and-trade-energy-bill-49034421.html)

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"I've been hearing" and "I got a random email from TEAM SARA stating that" are two different things.

If you have a link I'd be glad to agree with you.

Here's a list of all her stocks she owned according to her 2009 Financial information filing to the HoR. I don't have time to research all these, but others can jump in.

Some early highlights:

* her and her husband made about 10 million off the sale of AIG assets. Good to see the government bailout pay off for someone :rolleyes

* Environmental companies (this list isn't exhaustive of her list of stocks owned, just the ones I know of off the top of my head in looking at this list):

Clean Energy Fuels Corp - T. Boone Pickens alternative energy company (no conflict of interest here)

GE - huge manufacturer of wind turbines that are getting pumped with this bill. GE is also being tasked with handling some of the carbon credit trading market that will be established with the Crap & Trade. Nice way to make some easy money, eh Nancy?

Odyssey LLC - a quick google search turned up that their portfolio includes:

- Wastequip: Wastequip is the largest designer, manufacturer, and marketer of waste handling and recycling equipment used to collect, process, and transport solid and liquid waste in North America

- EAG: they build solar and semiconductor arrays as part of their product offering

Quest Energy - operates a huge natural gas lease in Oklahoma

Mathews International Fund - invests in China/Asia - how convenient, as a lot of production is going to move there with C&T.

Sorry if there's a typo or two below, I pulled these off an image scan of her financial filings.



Active LLC
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
Alcatel Lucents Ads
Alcoa Inc
AIG
AmericasDoctors.com
Aristtole LLC
AT&T
Auberge du Soleil - Ltd.
Avalon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
BF Enterprises
Biz360 Inc.
Borel Real Estate Company
Briazz
Broadcom
Builders Info Group
Bullhorn LLC
Cardiac Sceience Corp.
Cisco
City Car Services LLC
Clean Energy Fuels Corp *
CMGI, Inc.
Collab.net LLC
Comcast
Command Audio
Critical Path Inc.
Cryocor Inc.
Digital Fountain
Dover Saddlery Inc.
Dow Chemical
Ebay
EDI Associates
Emulex
Fastnet
FOrtunet Inc.
Forty-Five Belden Corp.
General Electric (GE)
Genitope Corp.
Getty Images Inc.
Global Ambassador Concierge LLC
Golub Capital Partners
Granite Ventures
iBiquity Digital Corporation
Infospace
Interactive Brokers Group Inc.
Itnernap Network Services
Intraop Medical Corporation
Inverness Medical Innovations Inc.
J. Crew Group Inc.
Johnson & Johnson
Lions Gate Limited
Marquery Antiques
Matthews Internation Mutual Fund
McGrath Rentrcorp. Inc.
Microsoft
Modulus Global Common Stock
MontaVista LLC
Morningstar Inc.
Mosher Partners LP
Nautilus Leasing Services
Navtez Corp.
Oakwood Homes Corp.
Odyssey LLC **
Overstock.com
QualComm Inc.
Quest Energy Partners LP
Rackspace Hosting Inc.
Redenvelope
RIMM
Robert Half Intl.
Salesforce.com
Shutterfly
Sonus Networks Inc.
SPeakesy Investors LP
Starbucks
Sun Microsystems
Support Soft
TeraOP LLC
Tripath Technology Inc.
Trivium LLC
Unicru LC
Visa
Vizu LLC
W.R. Hambrecht Money Market Fund
Yahoo Inc.
Yerac Associates Investment Fund **

[jman3000]

"I've been hearing" and "I got a random email from TEAM SARA stating that" are two different things.

:lol I was pretty close. TEAM SARAH isn't too far off from the Washington Examiner.

I don't even like the bitch either.

[ElNono]

You guys should invest in some of that stock that Pelosi owns... then you would be making money off it too, and can actually thank Pelosi for the tips...

[jman3000]

Ehhh... it looks like she has a pretty diversified portfolio. Trying to pick and choose conflicts of interest is a bit iffy.

I could make the same argument that she's trying to sabotage her money. She owns DOW Chemicals for Christ sake.

[jman3000]

Rackspace.... showing SA some love :hat

[Wild Cobra]

And here's the statements she filed:

Financial Disclosure Statement 2005 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2005/p000197.pdf)

Financial Disclosure Statement 2006 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2006/p000197.pdf)

Financial Disclosure Statement 2007 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2007/p000197.pdf)

Financial Disclosure Statement 2008 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2008/p000197.pdf)

[DarkReign]

I feel the same way. It would be one thing if the government would allow the 20 something planned nuclear plants to begin construction... but what's the point of trying to change our infrastructure if you're going to drag your feet on something that could really ease our use of coal?

I'm not gonna bitch like a baby now like some are doing in this thread... I'll start bitching when the empirical evidence starts popping up that this was a supremely shit-tacular piece of legislation. If sizable moves aren't made in the construction of new sources of energy early on... it's gonna be apparent that companies won't be prepared for the deadline and things will get a lot worse.

Either we'll make a transition to a completely restructured power infrastructure... or the dems just guaranteed GOP rule for the foreseeable future.

I think a better policy would have been to reward companies that retrofit/upgrade existing plants or build clean sources of energy rather than this road to punishment they think will work better.

You know, thats quite the fair approach. Lets see the lengths to which private industry feels compelled to build new energy infrastructure. Maybe I could be wrong.

But I friggin doubt it. Highly.

[Winehole23]

You act like they care what people have to think.I don't care whether they care or not. It ain't over til it's over. You act like the game is already lost. It isn't yet.

Cynicism is for quitters and crybabies.

[boutons_deux]

oil and energy lobbyists have bought enough Senators (fewer of them than Reps) to block this bill.

Senators say they read emails, calls, letters (esp from the NRA), but they vote as dictated to by the lobbyists.

[Winehole23]

oil and energy lobbyists have bought enough Senators (fewer of them than Reps) to block this bill. Even if they haven't, they helped draft a bill more favorable to them behind closed doors.

[boutons_deux]

"more favorable to them"

more favorable to their owners who will quid-pro-quo take care of them, now or after leaving office.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

oil and energy lobbyists have bought enough Senators (fewer of them than Reps) to block this bill.

Senators say they read emails, calls, letters (esp from the NRA), but they vote as dictated to by the lobbyists.

Yes, even though the chemical, oil, electric, and manufacturing lobbies all were against this bill and lobbied accordingly, the vote sure indicates that the pricks in the HoR voted as dictated by those lobbyists.

Good call as usual, croutons!

[Winehole23]

Croutons is right about the arithmetic in the Senate IMO.

Given the inherent difficulty of achieving cloture and the small absolute magnitude of the majority, special interests can stymie almost anything in the Senate by capturing a handful of US Senators.

[boutons_deux]

Reps are too numerous and flakey to buy reliably, that's why the smart corporate money flows to the Senate.

[SonOfAGun]

Cynicism is for quitters and crybabies.

I prefer, realist. At least I didn't fall into the hopey and changey herd.

[Winehole23]

I prefer, realist. Realists don't give up while there's still time on the clock.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.


http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/index_campaign.php





tRcq0Lxffwc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRcq0Lxffwc

[Viva Las Espuelas]

-DYucmLeofE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DYucmLeofE

[LnGrrrR]

I prefer, realist. At least I didn't fall into the hopey and changey herd.

You probably would've been much help in the Revolutionary War then.

"What? Us go against the strongest Navy in the world?"

:)

[LnGrrrR]

Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.


http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/index_campaign.php





tRcq0Lxffwc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRcq0Lxffwc

I think everyone realizes that promise is in the crapper.

Of course, Obama could say that every bill that doesn't get signed is due to some 'emergency'. I love it when Presidents use emergencies as excuses!

[RandomGuy]

The cap and tax bill has past - just barely. And 8 stupid republicans voted yes. All of them will be out of a job when they come up for re-election!

I cannot believe this bill passed - this is going to kill our country. They estimate it will cost 2 MILLION jobs a year!!!!! Pelosi - that spiteful bitch - had a 300 page amendment added in the middle of the night - so AGAIN - no one has read the bill they just voted for. :bang

God this makes me so angry - and yet very, very sad for this once great country. It's a sad, sad day for all Americans.

The CBO and any objective measure of this says that it is not going to be the "end of the world" and will cost far less than the Republican fear-mongering would have us believe.

In the end, the move away from volitile carbon-based non-renewable fuels will make the country as a whole far more competitive than it was before for a lot of reasons.

The good thing about this is that, the Republicans will simply lose more credibility with centrists because of their opposition to this bill.

Keep up the good work, Crookshanks. People like you are the best thing that has happened to the Democrats in years. :toast

[jman3000]

The CBO and any objective measure of this says that it is not going to be the "end of the world" and will cost far less than the Republican fear-mongering would have us believe.

In the end, the move away from volitile carbon-based non-renewable fuels will make the country as a whole far more competitive than it was before for a lot of reasons.

The good thing about this is that, the Republicans will simply lose more credibility with centrists because of their opposition to this bill.

Keep up the good work, Crookshanks. People like you are the best thing that has happened to the Democrats in years. :toast

While I agree with your premise, I think you're jumping the gun in thinking that it's a foregone conclusion that this is going to work. The evidence that this is going to work is still a decade away.

[RandomGuy]

While I agree with your premise, I think you're jumping the gun in thinking that it's a foregone conclusion that this is going to work. The evidence that this is going to work is still a decade away.

It will shift energy use from carbon-based forms, coal and oil, to other forms of energy, nuclear and renewables.

It won't happen overnight, but simple economic pressures and profit motive will do the rest.

Oil is about 5-10 years, if not less, from getting hellaciously expensive no matter what we do, and that will drive up the prices of everything as people and industries shift to something else.

The sooner we lay the groundwork for weaning ourselves from intensive oil-based energy usage, the farther out ahead of the pack we will be.

All of this is simply beside the CO2 emissions that are are the heart of the intent of this bill.

[coyotes_geek]

The CBO and any objective measure of this says that it is not going to be the "end of the world" and will cost far less than the Republican fear-mongering would have us believe.

The CBO analysis is fundamentally flawed. The WSJ does a better job of explaining than I can.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html


In the end, the move away from volitile carbon-based non-renewable fuels will make the country as a whole far more competitive than it was before for a lot of reasons.

Such as?


The good thing about this is that, the Republicans will simply lose more credibility with centrists because of their opposition to this bill.

Possible. Another possibility is the centrists decide this bill isn't all that great anymore when costs for electricity and gasoline go up and we find out that the same financial institutions that got wrapped up in the mortgage crisis are now playing in the carbon allowance trading arena.

[101A]

Anybody want to bet the principal "trader" of carbon credits won't be Goldman Sachs?

[Wild Cobra]

The CBO and any objective measure of this says that it is not going to be the "end of the world" and will cost far less than the Republican fear-mongering would have us believe.
Please, what are the other objective measure. Do they include what the supply and demand aspect will do to the value of reducing numbers of carbon credits over time?

Please don't tell me you trust CBO numbers.

In the end, the move away from volitile carbon-based non-renewable fuels will make the country as a whole far more competitive than it was before for a lot of reasons.
Yes, but only as a natural transition. As we move away from coal, and carbon tax energy, other nations will have even more advantages over us in manufacturing. That's why myself and others call this "The Full Chinese Employment Act of 2009!"

The good thing about this is that, the Republicans will simply lose more credibility with centrists because of their opposition to this bill.
Only to those ignorant of the facts.

It will shift energy use from carbon-based forms, coal and oil, to other forms of energy, nuclear and renewables.
That will happen anyway. Forcing it early places us at a competative disadvantage world wide.

It won't happen overnight, but simple economic pressures and profit motive will do the rest.
Yes, so why not just allow the profit motives do so in the first place?

Oil is about 5-10 years, if not less, from getting hellaciously expensive no matter what we do, and that will drive up the prices of everything as people and industries shift to something else.
Maybe. First of all, we will never run out of oil. Keep in mind, there are plenty of domestic resources available that congress just doesn't let us use.

The sooner we lay the groundwork for weaning ourselves from intensive oil-based energy usage, the farther out ahead of the pack we will be.
Bullshit. I have had lessons from professionals on being ahead of the pack for profits. Intel has come real good practices in that regard. I used to work for a contrator to Intel. I had some real good training on that subject.

All of this is simply beside the CO2 emissions that are are the heart of the intent of this bill.
No, all I see is scare tactics in the media to make a new market of carbon trading in the USA. Friend of Gore will profit immensely, as this nations wealth diminishes.

Anybody want to bet the principal "trader" of carbon credits won't be Goldman Sachs?
It could be. All I know is that they will be the friends of, and those who are perpetrating this Anthropogenic Global Warming fraud.

[SonOfAGun]

You probably would've been much help in the Revolutionary War then.

"What? Us go against the strongest Navy in the world?"

:)


Yeah, it's too bad the FBI is aware of ip adresses and internet message boards. :lol

I think this country is past the point of giving senators a ring-a-ding to change the system of destruction.

[Winehole23]

I think this country is past the point of giving senators a ring-a-ding to change the system of destruction.Who said anything about that?

We're talking about one bill that may not pass the US Senate, not the end of the world.

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, it's too bad the FBI is aware of ip adresses and internet message boards. :lol

I think this country is past the point of giving senators a ring-a-ding to change the system of destruction.

I meant that you, as a realist, probably would've said that there's no way the colonies could defeat the British. :)

[coyotes_geek]

I meant that you, as a realist, probably would've said that there's no way the colonies could defeat the British. :)

We all knew ahead of time that Lafayette would sneak in from behind and hit Cornwallis over the head with a folding chair while Washington distracted the ref.

[DarkReign]

Anybody want to bet the principal "trader" of carbon credits won't be Goldman Sachs?

Exactly.

This bill does nothing but transfer wealth from the majority to the minority.

The financial institutions now have a new market to exploit, the energy companies just plain dont care because no matter the costs theyre just passing it on to the consumer. The politicians though...I dont get what they receive out of this, really.

And I am sorry, RG, but this bill is anything but an incentive for energy infrastructure change. This is a half-ass bill to exploit.

If you, RG, wanted to change the energy consumption in this country, would this be the system to implemented? If so, I'd fire your ass.

The only effective mandate that could have came out of Washington was an X% increase of acceptable energy sources over Y number of years.

They half-assed it, purposely. Pathetic really. Write your congressman...as if I dont waste enough time here at ST. Congressmen are bought and paid for commodities. There may be a couple outliers or exceptions to the rule, but theyre hardly normal and even less influential. Disenfranchised, if you will.

All the better.

[RandomGuy]

The CBO analysis is fundamentally flawed. The WSJ does a better job of explaining than I can.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

Such as?

Possible. Another possibility is the centrists decide this bill isn't all that great anymore when costs for electricity and gasoline go up and we find out that the same financial institutions that got wrapped up in the mortgage crisis are now playing in the carbon allowance trading arena.

Forgive me if I do not assign much objectivity or weight to any analysis by a WSJ op-ed peice.

Any cost analysis, including the hysterical doom and gloom hand-waving on the part of the people who claim to be "pro-business", will have some vulnerability to starting assumptions, as the WSJ peice rightly points out.

It is entirely possible, and this is hinted at in this op-ed piece but never explicitly stated because they are trying to make a case against the bill and won't spell out anything that might hurt that case, that the cap and trade will actually benefit the economy in the long run and make our GDP higher than it would have been otherwise.

This point feeds into your "such as?" question.

There is, in my opinion, a very high likelihood that even if we did nothing at this point to encourage reduction in carbon-based non-renewable energy we would be facing massive run-ups in energy prices due to market factors in the coming years. This will likely happen even if we do the cap and trade too.

If we start developing a renewable energy tech base and infrastructure now, we can have years of research and development done, as well as some basic infrastruture built and good progress towards wringing out the efficiency gains that will allow us to be more insulated and prepared for these future spikes.

If we really do nothing, we can (collectively both public and privately) then scramble to do all of the research and development in a big rush while we are faced with spikes in energy that will make that rushed project effort all the more costly and the disruptions to our economy will happen all at once in some rather nasty shocks.

Europe's push for renewables now is happening. IF they do this and we don't, when the price of carbon-based fuels are spiking, they will have already make themselves insulated from these costs, and will face the rather pleasant competitive advantages over US businesses based in a country that is facing massive inflation and high interest rates driving up the cost of capital due to energy price spikes.

Eitehr we can lay the groundwork and get a couple of steps along the path, or we can play catch up with the companies and countries that have already done so when the need becomes apparent to even teh most head-in-the-sand types like Wild Cobra.

[RandomGuy]

bla bla bla, global warming bla bla bla I hate liberals bla bla bla conservatives can do no wrong bla bla bla I don't really know anything about economics or free markets bla bla bla.

:repost:

[sam1617]

Forgive me if I do not assign much objectivity or weight to any analysis by a WSJ op-ed peice.

Any cost analysis, including the hysterical doom and gloom hand-waving on the part of the people who claim to be "pro-business", will have some vulnerability to starting assumptions, as the WSJ peice rightly points out.

It is entirely possible, and this is hinted at in this op-ed piece but never explicitly stated because they are trying to make a case against the bill and won't spell out anything that might hurt that case, that the cap and trade will actually benefit the economy in the long run and make our GDP higher than it would have been otherwise.

This point feeds into your "such as?" question.

There is, in my opinion, a very high likelihood that even if we did nothing at this point to encourage reduction in carbon-based non-renewable energy we would be facing massive run-ups in energy prices due to market factors in the coming years. This will likely happen even if we do the cap and trade too.

If we start developing a renewable energy tech base and infrastructure now, we can have years of research and development done, as well as some basic infrastruture built and good progress towards wringing out the efficiency gains that will allow us to be more insulated and prepared for these future spikes.

If we really do nothing, we can (collectively both public and privately) then scramble to do all of the research and development in a big rush while we are faced with spikes in energy that will make that rushed project effort all the more costly and the disruptions to our economy will happen all at once in some rather nasty shocks.

Europe's push for renewables now is happening. IF they do this and we don't, when the price of carbon-based fuels are spiking, they will have already make themselves insulated from these costs, and will face the rather pleasant competitive advantages over US businesses based in a country that is facing massive inflation and high interest rates driving up the cost of capital due to energy price spikes.

Eitehr we can lay the groundwork and get a couple of steps along the path, or we can play catch up with the companies and countries that have already done so when the need becomes apparent to even teh most head-in-the-sand types like Wild Cobra.

Good, I agree that we need to remain competitive economically. Why does that mean that the government needs to force it to happen? If its a big deal to you, why don't you get up and go do it? Then you can be rich and in charge and become a republican.

[coyotes_geek]

Forgive me if I do not assign much objectivity or weight to any analysis by a WSJ op-ed peice.

Any cost analysis, including the hysterical doom and gloom hand-waving on the part of the people who claim to be "pro-business", will have some vulnerability to starting assumptions, as the WSJ peice rightly points out.

Completely ignoring the first 10 years of the program, which is exactly what the CBO report does, isn't an assumption. It's a fundamental flaw that renders the entire analysis meaningless.


It is entirely possible, and this is hinted at in this op-ed piece but never explicitly stated because they are trying to make a case against the bill and won't spell out anything that might hurt that case, that the cap and trade will actually benefit the economy in the long run and make our GDP higher than it would have been otherwise.

So we should ignore the multi trillion dollar price tag because "it's entirely possible" that we might come out ahead some day? When? How?


This point feeds into your "such as?" question.

There is, in my opinion, a very high likelihood that even if we did nothing at this point to encourage reduction in carbon-based non-renewable energy we would be facing massive run-ups in energy prices due to market factors in the coming years. This will likely happen even if we do the cap and trade too.

Cap and trade would artificially create that run-up in the middle of a recession. Is that really in our best interests? I don't think so. Cap and trade also opens up our energy costs to manipulation by speculators like we saw with the price of oil last year. Banks and hedge funds are going to manipulate our utilities and industries just like they did our mortgages.


If we start developing a renewable energy tech base and infrastructure now, we can have years of research and development done, as well as some basic infrastruture built and good progress towards wringing out the efficiency gains that will allow us to be more insulated and prepared for these future spikes.

We can do that without giving American businesses a bunch of new reasons to move American jobs overseas.


If we really do nothing, we can (collectively both public and privately) then scramble to do all of the research and development in a big rush while we are faced with spikes in energy that will make that rushed project effort all the more costly and the disruptions to our economy will happen all at once in some rather nasty shocks.

Cap and trade is going to create those same spikes and disruptions. Only instead of it happening some time down the road as a reaction to market forces it happens much sooner as a reaction to our government artificially creating a crisis.


Europe's push for renewables now is happening. IF they do this and we don't, when the price of carbon-based fuels are spiking, they will have already make themselves insulated from these costs, and will face the rather pleasant competitive advantages over US businesses based in a country that is facing massive inflation and high interest rates driving up the cost of capital due to energy price spikes.

How many european nations have a cap and trade bill of their own?


Eitehr we can lay the groundwork and get a couple of steps along the path, or we can play catch up with the companies and countries that have already done so when the need becomes apparent to even teh most head-in-the-sand types like Wild Cobra.

This isn't laying groundwork. This is slamming the breaks on the American economy in the middle of a recession. It's lowering the quality of life for every American by making everything they purchase more expensive. It's an incentive for companies to move American manufacturing jobs overseas where they don't have to play by these rules. It's a new way for financial institutions to manipulate our economy. It's a crap piece of legislation and nowhere is anyone offering any evidence that it's actually going to work.

[Crookshanks]

Here's another little tidbit that was in the last-minute, 300-page amendment: if a person wants to sell their house, they must first have a Federal EPA investigator come in and give the house an energy efficiency rating. If the rating is not high enough, the government will not allow you to sell your house. Got that people - the government will NOT ALLOW a private citizen sell his private property until the house is upgraded enough to pass the EPA regulations! How does that sound to all of you?

All those great little deals known as fixer-uppers will be gone! And businesses such as "We Buy Ugly Houses" will probably go out of business. But hey, it's all good since we're saving the planet from the very "pollutant" that trees need to grow.

This bill will allow the government to come in and regulate all sorts of things such as what light bulbs you can use and what type of thermostat and what temperature you can keep your house - gee, sounds like paradise to me! :flipoff

[ElNono]

Here's another little tidbit that was in the last-minute, 300-page amendment: if a person wants to sell their house, they must first have a Federal EPA investigator come in and give the house an energy efficiency rating. If the rating is not high enough, the government will not allow you to sell your house. Got that people - the government will NOT ALLOW a private citizen sell his private property until the house is upgraded enough to pass the EPA regulations! How does that sound to all of you?

All those great little deals known as fixer-uppers will be gone! And businesses such as "We Buy Ugly Houses" will probably go out of business. But hey, it's all good since we're saving the planet from the very "pollutant" that trees need to grow.

This bill will allow the government to come in and regulate all sorts of things such as what light bulbs you can use and what type of thermostat and what temperature you can keep your house - gee, sounds like paradise to me! :flipoff

Why do you hate our planet?

[Marcus Bryant]

Here's another little tidbit that was in the last-minute, 300-page amendment: if a person wants to sell their house, they must first have a Federal EPA investigator come in and give the house an energy efficiency rating. If the rating is not high enough, the government will not allow you to sell your house. Got that people - the government will NOT ALLOW a private citizen sell his private property until the house is upgraded enough to pass the EPA regulations! How does that sound to all of you?

All those great little deals known as fixer-uppers will be gone! And businesses such as "We Buy Ugly Houses" will probably go out of business. But hey, it's all good since we're saving the planet from the very "pollutant" that trees need to grow.

This bill will allow the government to come in and regulate all sorts of things such as what light bulbs you can use and what type of thermostat and what temperature you can keep your house - gee, sounds like paradise to me! :flipoff

Nice. Do you have a link for that?

[Crookshanks]

Actually, I heard the clips of John Boehner reading from the amendment, and I heard Michelle Bachman today reporting on the same thing. Since the bill wasn't actually written when it was voted on, there may not be a copy out there yet. So much for all this transparancy - they voted on a bill that hadn't even been written yet!

[Crookshanks]

Why do you hate our planet?
Why are you so blind and stupid?

[Marcus Bryant]

Why are you so blind and stupid?

I believe you are referring to a sarcastic comment.

[Ignignokt]

Why do you hate our planet?

Why are you ignorant of your planet?

[ElNono]

I believe you are referring to a sarcastic comment.

Somebody got it...

[Crookshanks]

Sorry about that El Nono - I wasn't totally paying attention because it was almost time to clock out. I see now that you were channeling Chump - my bad! :lol

[ElNono]

Sorry about that El Nono - I wasn't totally paying attention because it was almost time to clock out. I see now that you were channeling Chump - my bad! :lol

No worries. I know that piece of... legislation can drive people irate. No harm done.

[CosmicCowboy]

So Zero Rodriguez didn't vote for it? That's a surprise. He was probably one of those "at risk" congressmen they let off the hook.

[Winehole23]

111th Congress: 2009-2010
To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.
This is the so-called Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill and was considered more comprehensive and ambitious than both the Lieberman-Warner Bill and President Obama’s proposal. For more information, see Climate Change Legislation: Where Does it Stand? (http://www.govtrackinsider.com/articles/2010-04-27/climate-change).
Sponsor: Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA30] (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400425)


This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454

[The Reckoning]

lol good thing we designed government to be inefficient :tu